Did Darwin Kill God?

There are some who believe that Darwin's theory of evolution has weakened religion, fueled in part by Richard Dawkins' publishing phenomenon The God Delusion. Conor Cunningham argues that nothing could be further from the truth.

Cunningham is a firm believer in the theory of evolution, but he is also a Christian. He believes that the clash between Darwin and God has been hijacked by extremists - fundamentalist believers who reject evolution on one side, and fundamentalist atheists on the other. Cunningham attempts to overturn what he believes are widely held but mistaken assumptions in the debate between religion and evolution.

He travels to the Middle East where he shows that from the very outset, Christianity warned against literal readings of the biblical story of creation. In Britain, he reveals that, at the time, Darwin's theory of evolution was welcomed by the Anglican and Catholic Churches. Instead, he argues that the conflict between Darwin and God was manufactured by American creationists in the 20th century for reasons that had very little to do with science and religion and a great deal to do with politics and morality.

Finally, he comes face to face with some of the most eminent evolutionary biologists, geneticists and philosophers of our time to examine whether the very latest advances in evolutionary theory do in fact kill God.

He simply made up a term Ultra-Darwinism for what he didn't agree with and repeatedly constructed one strawman after another and lo and behold shot everyone of them down. This is one of the stupidest take downs of rational thinking.

If I had those that lived from 4000 bc until Jesus death on the cross, in a court room I could prove there was a God with many of those thousands plus many as eye witnesses that seen and experienced Gods power, and I will include myself.

what , where is the power of god now or did it all stop with the death of Jesus. Why can't. you prove it now ???

LIU
- 11/09/2015 at 17:54

I think they should give Richard Dawkins a chance to say. I used to watch the debate of Richard Dawkins. They never claim they (or science) can explain everything. Conversely, they hold the point the do not know everything as a merit of honesty. I do not know the description of so-called ultra-darwinism comes from where. And the superfluous hint to "selfish gene" is really objective.

I worship a dead man as well. George Carlin. I don't prey to George though. As he is now DEAD. George said the only truth in the Bible is that it's. ALL bulls*it. I was at a show and both seen and heard George say it. That's call CREDIBILITY. Another major component all religion lacks. George Bless.

The theory of evolution and Christianity could never coexist.
Christ quoted the creation story of Genesis as a real event that happened in a time in history, Matthew 19:1-11 and Mark 10:1-12.
Believe whatever you want, but if you think that the creation story in Genesis is not to be taken literary, then Jesus was a liar and consequently a sinner, and he won't be fit to be the savior of his people.

Christianity is myth basically, there is no real evidence for any of it. The 'god' Yahweh is the last in a string of 'gods' that man has created. And thank you, I will believe what I want, but as I am science and truth oriented, I'm waiting for you to present any evidence for a god or goddess.

David
- 06/01/2015 at 17:56

I'm a foreigner, and English is my second language.
It seems to me that you really didn't understand my comment, I was talking to those who believe both, Christianity and evolution.
And as far as Christianity being a myth, I disagree with you.
Secular historians like Tacitus, Seutonius and Josephus wrote about Jesus too, and the curious thing about it is that Tacitus wrote negatively about it, but nonetheless he did.
I write this to you because you claim to be truth oriented.

coryn
- 06/01/2015 at 20:41

Yes, reality oriented to be exact, it seems we might all believe in reality, so we'd have some common ground for discussion. But the problem as always is discerning truth from hearsay, is it not? For example, if I were to prove that no 'god' exists, would that not put the 'divinity' of Jesus in question? How would you know that the Josephus remarks were not hearsay, and that he never met Jesus.
God and Jesus would be more real if they would just 'show up' it seems to me, and then everyone would know.

David
- 06/01/2015 at 21:14

"How would you know that the Josephus remarks were not hearsay, and that he never met Jesus."

Historians don't always meet the people they write about, they interview others, do a lot of research etc.

What about the other two I mentioned?

If your statement is true then who are we going to believe?

If we use logic, isn't easier to believe something that happened 2,000 years ago, or 6,000 years ago than believe something much older than that? like evolution?

It is much easier to me to believe that my ancestors looked like me than something else evolution claims I evolved from.

The whole premise of evolution has been to remove God from the picture, it hasn't succeed.

My belief in a creator it not based in blind faith, the evidence is all around me, in my opinion it takes more faith to believe in evolution since it violates scientific laws like creating life out of non life, or order out of chaos.

Where does the feeling of shame comes from? or embarrassment? or the fact that we demand justice when someone wrong us? is that the result of evolution, or sin?

How come animals don't act like it?

There's clearly a moral and ethics problem with the human race, and the only one with the manual to fix it is the one who created us.

If we are all the same, then how come laws are different everywhere? you know why? because we have no clue outside the Creator what is right and what is wrong.

And where does our conscience comes from? you know the one that tells us right from wrong (in our own view).

Here is a translation of a poem by the Spanish poet Nunes de Arce.

Conscience never asleep
Silent and pertinent witness
That does not leave unpunished
No crime in life
The law is silent and the world forgets
But who shake your yoke?
If the High Maker pleased him
That alone with sin
you were to the blamed,
Whistleblower, judge and executioner

Gaspar Nunez of Arce

Achems_Razor
- 06/02/2015 at 01:58

Ah! another creationist! "How come animals don't act like it?" silly question. Because animals are not as evolved through the process of evolution as the human apes are, even though in the vast time span of the cosmos the human apes came swinging down from the trees only a short while ago!

Funny religee's

over the edge
- 06/02/2015 at 02:28

you state "My belief in a creator it not based in blind faith, the evidence is all
around me, in my opinion it takes more faith to believe in evolution
since it violates scientific laws like creating life out of non life, or
order out of chaos."
could you please provide this evidence? where in the theory of evolution does it claim life came from non life? what scientific laws does the theory of evolution violate? you have made some big claims. can you back them up?

Fabien L'Amour
- 06/02/2015 at 18:09

Can you point me to those scientific laws that forbid the evolution of life out of non life? As far as I know, there are no laws in chemistry that forbid the apparition of all the chemistry of life out of simple elements.

It's actually how it is done for every new organism that appears on the planet. Every new human is made out of chemicals ingested by their mother.

SvenTheBold
- 06/10/2015 at 02:32

"The theory of evolution and Christianity could never coexist."

Except... they do. Abundantly. Worldwide. Among all three major groups of Christians, Catholic, mainline-Protestant, and Orthodox.

"Creationism" is based primarily on a misunderstanding of the term "day." The fact is, human societies do not always use their word for "day" in a strict literal sense. Even in the strictest English senses, "day" can mean either a period of 24 hours or else the period of sunlight. But we also say things like "in the day of the dinosaurs;" we all know what that means, and only a pedant would take it literally. French has a construction "au jour d'aujourd'hui" which if taken literally has the redundant meaning of "in the day of today;" but the phrase came about as a way of referring to the general sense of "nowadays" as distinct from aujourd'hui / today (though the phrase has been much-mocked since). The list goes on.

In that era, one "day" was the period of time between successive sunsets, which fits neither of our modern English definitions of "day". But when you also consider that the story comes from a time before formal definitions could be written down (the story predates writing) the argument that the word "day" cannot have had a figurative meaning... well, let's just say that I'm not convinced.

David
- 06/10/2015 at 02:53

Please explain to me how the plants survived without sunlight throughout the third day (age) if the sun wasn't created until the fourth day (age).
Like I said before, believe whatever you want, but if you believe creation and evolution are compatible, you have a problem to solve.

SvenTheBold
- 06/11/2015 at 01:11

Even the creationists can answer that: light was made in the first day. But let give you a more complete answer, since that's what you're really asking for.

Days 2-4 of Genesis' creation were: the "dome of the sky", "the gathering together of the waters" and plants, then the sun moon and stars. Starting with the dome of the sky, we know that the planet's second atmosphere after the primordial nebula was blown away by solar wind consisted of volcanic outgasses. According to Wikipedia, this atmosphere consisted mostly of nitrogen, CO2, and inert gases.

We see evidence of liquid water dating from as old as 3.8 billion years ago (bya), and the evidence of life a soon as 3.5 bya. This gives rise to what's called "the faint young sun paradox", since the sun's output was too low to have allowed liquid water as early as we see it, unless you take into account greenhouse gases, which we know to be emitted by volcanoes, the source of the second atmosphere.

After the seas and plants were made, we get what's called the Great Oxygenation Event at 2.4 bya. This event radically altered the composition of the atmosphere into that thing that we can see through today. I can admit fully that this is the biggest stretch of anything in the story, but the fact is, we don't know enough about climatology yet to know how conducive to cloud formation the pre-GOE atmosphere was. If the skies were mostly cloudy pre-GOE, then there's not much reason to suspect that an alien visitor would've be able to see the sun, moon, or stars before the skies cleared; from an earthly perspective, it would be as if that event *established* those entities as features of the landscape.

I use the word "establish" because that's a far better translation of the Hebrew verb "bara", which in Genesis we translate as "create." There is no clear usage of the verb "bara" in the Bible to mean literal creation. "Bara" is the verb used when the psalmist says "Create in me a clean heart, O God"; I have trouble believing that a better translation of the Hebrew would be "Remove foreign particulates from my chest cavity, O God."

Tell me: did you really think that out of 2 billion Christians, not one would be able to come up with an answer to your question?

David
- 06/11/2015 at 01:24

You sure had to stretch that one out to come up with that fantastic answer, I guess if you find it in Wikipedia there's nothing else to discuss.
I went to the main source, and that's what I read into the text, again, believe whatever you want, that's your prerogative.
I personally believe in the literal translation of the creation account, I just don't see what you see there, and I don't have to look at other sources, or consult this expert or that. The only one to bring about a resolution to this debate is the author of Genesis, not Wikipedia.

SvenTheBold
- 06/11/2015 at 01:30

Well, as to what the human author of Genesis would've said, one thing we know about ancient near-eastern literary and artistic forms is that photorealism was rarely their point. We've all seen how Egyptian art was heavily stylized; oral art often went likewise.

I have a strong suspicion that if we could open up a time portal (and keep the guy from freaking out), he'd say something to the effect that the ordering had more to do with the way the importance of the seasons follows from the importance of agriculture.

But whatever. What I also know is this: polarizing the argument is not the way to go about this, no matter how convinced you are of the truth of your own opinion.

Kenneth Kelly
- 02/12/2015 at 09:52

Sarwin did not kill the myth of Gog s. Darwin never intended to kill the myth. He was only presenting the truth as he saw it. The myth would dwindle to just an annoyance if the few were not getting very wealthy by keeping it seem to be alive. Religions are all about power and wealth.

God was clear. He is the alpha and the omega; the beginning and the end. He is creator and final judge. However whatever happens in between is evolution, and that makes for the many flavours or itineration of life. It makes everything unique.

God established the eternal order which makes us wonder how the laws that operate on galactic, planetary, social and biological levels expose the infinite cycle of life and death.

Scriptures were written to inhibit alteration of details, which tend to corrode as a story is passed from person to person or from one generation to the next. In fact Scriptures are revised periodically in the popular language version to enhance communication. Yet the accounts Scriptures contain are not immune from personal bias or limits of imagination of the witness giving testimony. The witness too is not exempt from the poor influences of the crude technology environment he is part of.

Even if the source code is pure and identical, human interpretation is still a diluting factor since individual thought process and experience vary. The human programs that process the source code are not identical, leaving sufficient room for mistakes and wrong interpretation.

In other words Scriptures, no matter how accurate, is just a tool for Truth. Some will develop the skill to use this tool and advance in craft or career, while others may even get hurt. As history would show, Scriptures had been misused to pursue destruction from the time Israel became a nation to the rise of Hitler and even by modern religious cults. In fact, the Pharisees and Scribes used Scriptures to condemn Jesus, the Son of God.

God sent Jesus to be a solution to this problem. He is the Word made flesh. If God alone is good, then man must be made pure and holy to completely communicate what God via his prophets or witnesses in Scriptures want to relay to the rest of mankind. Jesus does not do away with Scriptures but leads men to Truth. In order to gain accurate knowledge of God, man must gain the Holy Spirit first.

have to comment on this cant help myself been staying silent too long .
Science is the search for truth . Same can be said for religion . However both truth are completely different and they set the tone for for those truths . Science is in your face constant attack to prove a theory right or wrong . Science deals in fact and fact alone . Religion on the other hand is way different . When religion is taken in its proper context it leads to a better understanding of the self . The truth of the self is what religion is about and not scientific fact . Its down to morals and how you would treat one another .

The problem is today with the extremists on both sides . They are both ignorant to the truth held within both subjects . Science doesnt give a damn about morality . The bible doesnt give a damn about facts concerning the working of life and the universe . The problem here is one side is claiming the others argument . Yes science and religion used to be closely involved .

The thing is one cant live without the other . In a morally just person science can be a powerful tool . In a morally corrupt persons hands it can be a ticking time bomb . THis is the flip side of both . Religion taken literally and science with good intent gone wrong .

I have to ask both sides to stop been so ignorant of each other . Tearing shreds out of each other is getting you guys nowhere so its about time you all just give it up .

DARWINISM is not a religion , It doesnt even exist . ( its a name given to the theory of evolution to give it a more religious feel to evolution )
Religion is not science , its a guide on how to live in pease with your fellow man . Even though a lot seem to ignore that these days .

People don't seem to understand that
science is the process of discovering and trying to understand God's
creation and the phenomenon we call evolution is a natural process
that God put in place, and we are by no means the finished product.
Having said that, NO human can know what god is exactly. That would
be like expecting bacteria to understand anything we know about
physics. Why do people right away refer to the bible when God is
mentioned? There are many religions not just Christian all of which
should NOT be used as a reference to explain the natural world. So
the bottom line is that science, religion and spirituality are all
different things and have no relation to each other.
It should be suffice that we have some vague sense of an omniscient being but that's it. So the whole debate of evolution vs God is just the
creation of pompous "know it all" people on both sides of
the argument. Religion can be and IS a tool to keep people uninformed
and unenlightened for the benefit of the few.

The theory of memes doesn't mean everything is a delusion. For a theologian this guy doesn't get distinctions. The lady he talked to about memes called viral memes "untrue" memes. What is wrong with true memes? Being true would help a meme replicate. Take two memes 1. gravity will pull one down if one steps off a cliff and 2. one will float if one steps off a cliff. The truth of 1 will cause it to replicate more successfully than the other.

Evolution is a meme, God is a meme, the theory of memes is a meme. Saying something is a meme is like saying it's an idea. True ideas get spread around, sometimes untrue ideas get spread around, but truth is a quality of ideas that helps them spread. The same holds with memes.

As much as the host and Ruse wanted Dennett to say "Darwin entails no God", he didn't say anything of the sort. If he had said that during the interview, you'd better believe the host would have used that clip. Dennett said there is no role for God in evolution. That doesn't entail no God, but it makes God a fifth wheel. It takes away a reason to believe in God.

you seem to be confusing atheism with agnostic they are not the same. atheism makes a claim of knowledge. I remain agnostic concerning both claims for and against God, saying that neither side has convcing agurment, many times atheist like to claim they are agnostic like you are trying to do.

Mark Jones
your not a theist or atheist? so seeing as you neither believe or lack belief in god claims (all 28 million of them) what is your stance on god(s)? or are you just sitting back trolling?

Mark Jones
- 10/03/2012 at 10:16

all i can say is that I am not atheist or theist, i am open and remain agnostic but do not see any logical connection between being atheist and agnostic

over the edge
- 10/03/2012 at 10:26

Mark Jones
you know that theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic are answers to two different questions? one concerns "belief/lack of belief" and the other concerns "knowledge/lack of knowledge". so again (it is a simple question) do you believe or lack belief in a god or gods? atheism is not a claim of non existence only a refusal to believe others claims due to lack of evidence. it has been estimated that throughout our history there have been 28 million gods that have been worshiped at the very least you have to be an atheist where all but one of them is concerned.

Alec Sharratt
- 10/01/2012 at 12:22

This guy also managed to get a quote mine in there to support his spurious argument, which seems to hinge on the fact that there are no real facts in the bible! Hence Evolution doesn't contradict it. That my friend is just an opinion.

Scientific materialism the view that only viable way of acquiring knowledge is via scientific method and the only reality is material-is a philosophical assumption than scientific conclusion. How, for example, by the scientific method ,can one come to the conclusion that the scientific method is the only viable way of acquiring knowledge? from following the scientific method, can one know that the only reality is material?

This guy is grasping to try to preserve his faith in the face of lack of evidence for it. He said that the meems of evolution and religion r on an equal level. this doesn't take into account the evidence for evolution and the lack of it for religion

I like the premise of this documentary as this is somewhat close to my line of thinking. When you look at sciences like particle physics, quantum theory, and even string theory, there are things that it seems science will never be able to answer. When you think about how math and physics breaks down at the instant of the big bang, there is something divine about it. However, this divinity, to me, does not translate into anything close to modern religion. If there is a 'God', it is so far beyond any kind of explanation that the language of religion can ever begin to describe. I do believe that you can take evolution as the fact that it really is but still believe in a spiritual existence far removed from the teachings of modern religion. But I do not believe, how the host says himself, that Jesus was God-incarnate and there has been some kind of supernatural intervention on earth. The sooner people stop humanizing the idea of God, believing that he has some kind of vested interested in how we behave, and us having to be subserviant to him or suffer the wrath of hell, the better we all will be.

My question to the host would be, 'why Christianity? Why not any of the hundreds of other religions people believe in?'

I see no reason why the God couldn't be interested. If God wants to be interested, and do crazy things that are mysterious to us, and make us wonder and debate and really decide if we believe in just ourselves, just what we can see, even though what we observe depends on relativity... I'm just saying, there's no reason it can't be possible. After all, to have created, and be uncreated, free from time and space and basically infinite, like you said we cannot perceive, but, we can understand that in our lack of being able to comprehend something infinite, and uncaused, causing effects without needing its own cause, then it can "do" whatever it wants, at whatever level, and it isn't bound by time or our concepts of possible or even interpretation. That may be out only "saving grace," our ability to humble ourselves by assuming "if there is God," and then saying, "I must be reverent, and listen." Faith and piety go hand in had, and that's how science was born. Piety is putting faith to work to show and display the powers of faith.

John
- 04/18/2012 at 18:31

This film is pure nonsense. Atheist simply means that you do not believe in a god or gods. It is impossible to be a "'fundamentalist' atheist". You christians need to get over yourselves and stop psychotically imagining that people who don't believe the same thing as YOU are all somehow evil "extremists". Reason, both practically and by definition, can not be extremist. Atheists simply choose Logic and Reason over blind faith. Faith, by definition, is the opposite of Reason. The lack of Reason, by definition, is ignorance. If you say someone lacks Reason, you are saying they are stupid. Blind faith (the lack of reason), by definition, is simply ignorance.
Atheism = Reason
Faith = Lack of Reason

And we have faith the sun is going to rise tomorrow, that doesn't mean we worship the rising sun. You're getting hung up on the semantics of the word 'faith'. Atheism isn't a religion.

Mark Jones
- 10/03/2012 at 09:09

Atheism is still belief system. For it claims to know that God does not exists. like the Theist the burden of proof still remains for the atheist as well as the theist, because atheism claims to know there is no God I dont know

Samuel Morrissey
- 10/03/2012 at 09:53

No, there is a difference between :-

a) having no belief in god.
b) believing there is no god.

Atheism is defined as (a) and not having belief cannot be a belief system. Likewise, not playing football cannot be a sport.

Mark Jones
- 10/03/2012 at 10:11

sure it is belief because it cannot proved. yet claims to know. this nonsense to claim otherwise.

Kateye70
- 10/03/2012 at 15:20

You forgot apatheist:

c. not caring one way or the other.

oQ
- 10/03/2012 at 16:45

d. pantheist
1i

coryn
- 01/04/2015 at 12:27

Wrong! Atheism means I see no evidence of any god or goddess. Faith is a hope, a wish, believing without any evidence. Do I need faith to tell me the earth will continue rotating such that the sun appears each morning? Science says it is very, very likely the sun will be seen once every 24 hours.

Man has been creating spirits and gods since early times for practical reasons, for group identity, solidarity and allegiance, for 'us' against 'them' when us against them was about all there was. The penalty for not believing could be ostracism, being banned from the group.

You can't seriously believe that a 'God' created this very incredible mess we call human life, can you? A world where every creature must eat another living creature, for himself to stay alive. How could a perfect 'God' create anything so imperfect as a human?

And why would a 'God' create three religions with 3 different 'Holy Books', each of which tells followers to kill each other. And the Jews, Christians and Muslims have been killing each other ever since. There are peaceful religions you know: Taoism, Bhuddism, Jainism, etc.

Yeheshua
- 04/04/2012 at 14:47

34:26..."The age of the earth, indeed the whole universe is about 6000 years".
Indeed...
And as the bible says 1000 years is but a day to god...

Such magnificent power... Perhaps not much of a visionary though.

I'll whip up a universe this week,then, on earth, I'll favour a nation over all the others, see how much genocide I can inspire them to commit. By the end of next week I'm sure it'll be entertaining..

There is no way that theists can prove that god(s) exist, and no way that atheists can prove that they don't. And it is outside the province of science to do anything with the question directly. All this guy is saying is that it is possible to believe in a god and in evolution too because they are not mutually exclusive as some would have you believe (god can chose any way he/she wants to run things, including allowing the ingredients for life to come into existence and then letting natural processes take over). Maybe a god began everything with the big bang, then stood back and allowed "mother nature" to take control. Maybe not. No one knows.

HOW REFRESHING to hear a moderate view in this stone throwing battle. Christian or moderate agnostic or dedicated astrophysicist, let's give homage to the voice that says life and the Cosmos in which it thrives is mysterious and dignified.
Frankly, science (and I have the upmost respect for the nobility of science) may inquire into the mechanisms of life's processes but it has no business in surmounting as to what the nature of life might be and will never explain the magic of life or the cosmos, for these questions of spirit are out of its ultra-disciplined realm. Science may lead us to awe and wonder, but it doesn't begin there.Science rather serves as a potent and magnificent tool to unravel mysteries about what is happening around us, overwhelmingly physically, but it is not the job of science to be subjective. Science is not subjective.
It seems to me that when atheists find themselves interpreting the root of human existence, they end up seeing man as an ugly, evil brute. Darwin himself was haunted by the only conclusions about man that he could draw. Self-loathing, cynicism, and acerbic sarcasm seem to be typical of people like Dawkins, Russel, Hawkings, and others. Einstein said people so afflicted may as well be dead. The horror of man, as the atheists and reductionists would have it, is built into us.In other words, we are a glum lot.
The churches and religions, with all their pomposity, arrogance, and paranoid superstitions have, on the other hand, inflicted centuries of pain and torment to the masses and have hypocritically held the lead banners into the senseless slaughter of innocent lives in wars to numerous to count. The devil can quote scripture all he likes but the church will never really own a single soul.
We seem to forget that ultimately to practice science without a spiritual life leads to horrifying depression, and that fanatical superstition based ludicrously on otherwise valuable scriptures leads man to demonize his fellow. It is my opinion that the universe gives us in just one tree a whole lifetime of miracles to ponder.

Actually, while some have done things specifically in the name of religion such as what Communism inflicted in the name of Atheism, religion was not the main cause of our problems throughout history. The main cause of problems was and has always been human selfishness and the ambition of the selfish and inhumane.

bluetortilla
- 03/25/2012 at 18:56

War in the post agricultural era has become anomalous to the will of life to flourish (not merely survive). From an evolutionary standpoint, it threatens not just mankind but much of life on earth and has done nothing to alleviate overpopulation, hunger, and the numerous demons that plague us as our technology grows. War can be seen as simply evil, whatever that means to the reader.
Any vehicle can be used to justify this evil, including and perhaps most frequently throughout history, religion (though it has no monopoly as you point out). War could I suppose be justifiable in self-defense but self-defense is far too often just a lie to wage unnecessary aggressive war. The problem in defensive war moreover is that the defenders usually end up acting just as brutal as the aggressors. It may sound naive, but war literally needs to be outlawed and banished from the earth.
True spirituality is hard to nurture and the only way I know to lead a full life desiring good for others is a healthy spiritual balance. Truly, we are at a crux and the Darwinist might say that, given that we remain on the brink of nuclear catastrophe, spirituality (as opposed to 'religion') may be the only adaptation that can save us from ourselves. A cynic might monstrously say if we are slated for extinction, then that's the way the law works and so be it. But we are human and as humans we want to prosper and we want to survive. That is built into us and there is something strange about someone analytical to the point that he loses his sense of his own humanity and sees society with a microscope.

William Harold Shadley
- 04/28/2012 at 01:00

It doesn't matter if sometimes people pretend to be attacking in self-defense. The fact that it is possible for a person to potentially be attacked by another person, for whatever reason, means that fighting in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Are you to choose death? Should we all be Kent State students, and let soldiers of the consumerist imperialists strike us down? And then return home and be outraged for a little while after watching the news... And say, "no! You cannot fight! You do not know what is right! Let only the evil men fight, then we will be certain of their aims and can position ourselves as betters in the media, but otherwise allow and seek profit somehow from the discord!"

No. You will lift the banner of righteousness and fight.

bluetortilla
- 04/28/2012 at 05:50

Fighting when cornered is righteous, though freezing is perhaps more common. Stooping to unethical murder of civilians just because the foe does it is not justifiable nor sustainable. Kent State is a good example- who was responsible for allowing live bullets to be used instead of employing non-lethal means? He is the one waiting to be brought to justice.

I must say I find this all too common argument you present nihilistic and apologist. You may find killing as 'not necessarily a bad thing.' I don't at all; I find it unacceptable. I think we should be above killing each other. But your view is the majority view unfortunately.

If we want to fight, we must understand that words are our only weapon. We all die, and there are things worth dying for. When people die senselessly, are slaughtered without conscience or mercy, it behooves us to shout from the rooftops. Around the world, we see people risking their lives for freedom through non-violent protest. I hope that side eventually wins.

Sieben Stern
- 02/04/2012 at 02:36

without even watching the doc i can answer that question. Yes. Why yes he did. Once the mystery of how life diversified it lead the way to answering many other questions that were once in the realm of theology. If anything he displayed a brilliance that started the squeeze on the 'god of the gaps' that will, in short order, squeeze the deity to nothing.

There is nothing in all of science or Atheism that actually refutes the existence of God.

When you choose to believe that God doesn't exist, it is choice made on your personal faith in the integrity and ability of humankind to interpret accurately the facts that we are presented.

You may feel it intelligent and even pat yourself on the back for such blind belief, but most of us are not ready to be so . . .er, bold.

Sieben Stern
- 03/26/2012 at 04:14

Like i replied to you earlier - it's not up to atheists to prove there is no god, they aren't making the positive claim - it's the theists that say there is a god, and 'he' is the god in the bible, etc. they have to prove their own positive statement.

what's funny is that i don't feel like i CHOSE not to believe in god. i just don't, no one has given me a compelling reason to. and, honestly, i think most people who are theists CHOOSE to believe and purposefully ignore facts and evidence (that actually being the definition of 'faith')

I do not have 'faith' - please look up what that word means and it's multiple uses before you sling it around - as in - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence vs Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

so having faith in humanity is different than 'faith' in god. i can touch and talk to people and get them to reply, humanity actually exists and can communicate and lay out a case to me as to why they deserve my faith.

If you think relying on facts and stuff that exists is bold or even blind... then i don't think those things mean what you think they mean.

what is bold is asserting things without evidence and then wholeheartedly believing them without question. what is humble is not knowing, being comfortable with it, and waiting for facts before asserting your position. and bolder still to waste your only known life hoping that there's some eternity waiting for you.

what is blind is 'faith' in theistic terms - holding onto the bible and ignoring the greater world around you. blind faith has no evidence and doesn't need or want any. such as - it won't change its position on the age of the earth if there are facts that prove it's wrong - because it's just blind faith - not based on reality in the slightest.

William Harold Shadley
- 04/28/2012 at 00:55

~G is the claim, it is still an equal assertion in logical efficacy. You aren't listening to those who try to help you see.

Relativity says that all observers will see themselves as the center of the universe, as far as we know it is possible to look, because of how light, space, and time work, and how they interact with matter and energy. This is all necessary for the kind of logic and reason we use to observe... but if the perspective changes, depending on the scale, the outcomes are very different. Also, all we can know is the realm of cause and effect. We know something cannot come from nothing. Anything capable of bringing something from nothing would be indistinguishable from an infinite force to us... to any observer, as the principles of relativity would dictate. The only question now is, could this infinite force reveal itself somehow to humans, in a way that is not limited by the rules of the rest of our reality... in our thoughts, in our minds??? Could an infinite force do x? Of course. Humble yourself now before those who hear, know, and take time to share with you, because when you cover your ears and close your eyes you offend them and look like a fool, and you fulfill their holy books' prophecies for them. They can say to their disciples, "look! the naysayers as were foretold! Come, let us cast ranks of righteous soldiers amongst their weapons of mass destruction, and take back the lands in the name of the Necessary Creator!"

Then what?

lol

Sieben Stern
- 05/01/2012 at 23:11

your paragraph is mostly gobblygook, but from what i can discern there are two replies:

there is nothing humble about claiming a human-centric being created the universe. or thinking that there is a 'necessary creator' speaking to humans. this is just your ego thinking that everything was created for humankind.

no one claims that the universe came from nothing. no one knows what came before the 'big bang' or even the Planck seconds right after it. saying therefore god is nonsense.

and honestly, god doesn't exist. please look up Bart Ehrman and find out how the bible really came to be from a completely historic perspective. when you realize there's no sky daddy you can finally grow up.

Anthony Glaude
- 01/11/2012 at 06:18

@ epicurus "dont you think it is silly to hold something to be true that has no evidence and while doing so dismiss that which has tons of evidence?"
Mr Epicurus please tell me, where could I find these tons of evidence.

Hebrews 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Alas;Whether Darwin finally knew the Living Truth or not/the Good Lord knows...John14:6(there's reverant fear&then the other kind need not apply2us)our Creator;the Father,Son and the Holy Spirit gave us our own free-will.Whether we choose not2believe,we still have made a choice.

You religious ppl out there! Lilith got cast out from Eden by GOD cause she didn't obey Adam! Why don't you lot live after that today? Is it alright for you to change the religions containt as it pleases you? It was also alright to sell and buy slaves. Want me to give you a list of similiar texts?

The earth is the Lord's fullness thereof: this is no longer a hollow dictum of religion, but a directive for economic action toward human brotherhood.
Lewis Mumford All men's souls are immortal, but the souls of the righteous are immortal and divine.
Socrates As to marriage or celibacy, let a man take which course he will, he will be sure to repent.
Socrates
Death may be the greatest of all human blessings.
Socrates False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.
Socrates I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.
Socrates
I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.
Socrates 1 Corinthians 8:2 ~ And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know
Galatians 6:3
For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.

over the edge
- 12/30/2011 at 05:57

@Darcy Moorhead
that seems like fun let me try
Yoda 2:26 do..or do not there is no try

spider man 1:36 with great power comes great responsibility

bugs bunny 5:97 Don't take life too seriously. You'll never get out alive!

kahn 4:17 The needs of the many outweigh ... the needs of the few... Or the one.

now as much fun as this is. we can trade fictional quotes all day or do you have a point or better yet evidence one way or another regarding the documentary ??

Serenity
- 03/25/2012 at 18:38

And while you're asking Darcy for evidence, why don't you present evidence, or is proof always the burden of the theist, because if so, you'll be waiting a while as God seems to think He's God and that we actually should have to seek Him out. It's ridiculous isn't it, that God would have the audacity to require us to seek Him out before He'll prove anything to us?

over the edge
- 03/25/2012 at 19:11

@Serenity
the burden of proof always lies with those making a claim. you think god exists i don't believe you. i cannot prove god doesn't exist any more than i can prove leprechauns don't exist. what i can do is show evidence that invoking god is not necessary for the development (evolution) if living things. next communism did not do anything in the name of atheism. please show me one time where an action was justified by the lack of god. was Stalin an atheist yes, was he an arse yes , did he commit horrible acts yes. but his atheism was not a justification for those acts. i can show you many cases (with quotes) of people using their holy books to justify their actions. can you do the same for atheism?

Guest
- 07/07/2013 at 12:52

Then proof to me that easterbunny doesn't exist! Prove me that there is no invisible pink unicorns around us all the time! Do I hear you say that you aren't making a claim that they don't exist and that you just don't even think about it, it isn't any reason for you even consider them? Well, everybody's an atheist in a way, since no-one believes everything that someone claims. Besides, you can't prove that something doesn't exist, you can just find no evidence to support it. I don't know actually how old or how educated you are, since your claim is just simply wrong: burden of proof is on the ones that make the positive claim, not "negative claim" since that doesn't really exist - it's only an absence of a claim.

So since you can't or don't want to prove me that easter bunny doesn't exist, therefore he does? I hope that spaghettimonster gains a lot of "believers" and gets coverment funding to spread it's word... Maybe then you would understand that god claim is just as unfounded as any other claim one might come up with. Just because there is more people believing the same thing that you do, doesn't make it more real or force anybody to take it more seriously. Only evidence to support it does, and religious people have no.

Sieben Stern
- 03/26/2012 at 03:58

the proof is on the person making the positive claim.

norlavine
- 10/03/2011 at 11:20

I like the way how Cunningham understands and describes why atheists think the way they do, without attempts to lampoon them. He has strong beliefs but also an extremely open and intelligently scientific mind. His references to an unfathomably mysterious and omnipotent Creator are excellent.

A philosophical text that isn't supposed to be interpreted literally is useless. Worse than useless. That's exactly the sort of mindless drivel that has led to countless wars and other types of religious persecution over the centuries. Seems to me that if any god worthy of the title has something to say, he could do so clearly and unambiguously. And certainly he should be able to do so without blatantly contradicting himself as the Bible does time and again.

I thought it was a very interesting documentary. Unique in attempting to stay somewhat in the middle of the controversy. I also think Darwin has been often totally misunderstood. Mention Darwin to most Christians and you would think you had said something satanic! I liked the host too. Very pleasant speaker...sounded almost Irish....loved the way he said "Goawd"! LOL!

Taking extreme positions saves a lot of cognitive effort. One can rely on a single source of information (be it the bible or the origin of the species) to find the truth rather than continually look for it.

Fundamentalists sacrifice the complexity of life to settle for a reductionist, or as Simon would say, "satisficing" explanation: it's all in
the bible, it's all in the genes...

It would seem that Cunningham is a little angry with the atheists that are 'strident' in their acceptance of evolution. The trouble is that religion has nothing to say about science except in indirect allegorical, mythological means. Cunningham's anger is somewhat disingenuous. He believes in a Christian god, why doesn't he believe in some other god as well. It's probably that he was raised in a religious home, and has not got the courage to let it go.

"What we were told" That's interesting. I'm sure geography differences and cultural differences may be the culprit but I never had any negative ideas fed to me that Darwinism destroys the idea of God or Christianity. I do know that christianity, and other monotheistic religions, have ridiculed, tortured and murdered some of the best minds that science ever had or ever could have had, namely during the reformation. That has made me a bit bitter but to say "What we were told" was that Darwinism leaves no place for god suggests that there was some kind of backlash from early Darwinism at least in England where it all began because here in the U.S. I did not experience that kind of negativity. Although not because of Darwinism, I found myself an atheist as I feel all the religions that we know has God all wrong. If there is a god I believe he would have set this universe in motion a long time ago and that or egocentrically scripted idea of god is corrupt and gives no truth to what god truly is.

That's not to say, especially today, that there is no backlash from Darwinism because I see some nut jobs at PTA meetings and I'm afraid for future generations to be taught Creationism and I.D. It makes me so angry and sad all at the same time. I wish I could be at those board meetings when they vote to put creationism in schools because someone like Cunningham needs to be there to tell these douches how dumb they are.

Clix (????)
- 04/14/2011 at 00:49

Gotta love the Foxnsque title! Mr. Murdoch must be tickled by how well he has infiltrated our collective psyche.

I have to say it is strange that they did not bring up the most important point about evolution which is human evolution. This guy clams to believe in evolution AND the existence of god at the same, this to me is absurd. The bible to many believers is the word of god but this comes to great scrutiny in the eye of science e.g. genesis tells us that birds where created on the 4th day before land animals (on the 5th day)which is extremely wrong as birds evolved from land animals so to believe in evolution is to believe that the first chapter of genesis which is the word of god to be false. So if the verse in genesis which tells us that birds came before land animals is false whats stopping anything else within the bible to be false?second of all this guy tells himself what he wants to hear. He tells himself that the contradiction within chapter 2 of genesis has a philosophical meaning and is meant to be there, which is nonsense. this contradiction in genesis is a f*** up in plain sight. he doesn't see this because he simply doesn't want to. to make my point he only makes a rather poor excuse to explain the many contradictions within the bible he doesn't see it as a f*** up because the bible is the word of god and apparently god doesn't f*** up but man does. explained to me by countless Christians god gave man knowledge to write the bible. did god tell them to make a contradiction within the first 3 pages of the bible? i do not see how that would go as an argument towards the authenticity of the bible.If this Christian in the film cannot disprove it and actually has to change the way people read genesis to create a lasting merit for the bible than in effect evolution proves that there is no god because as much as science disproves god, man makes up excuses for how it can fit in with the bible and it wont last much longer science will close the gap.look i could write a book about this subject but seriously research it yourselves do not rely on the bible to give you the answers. quote of the day "isn't it enough to see the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom if it too?" Douglas Adams

Come on. Isn't this getting a little old with all the semantics? If you believe in a higher power, what's the big deal? If you believe in God then why is it so hard to believe that evolution is an example of HIS process? This back and forth cherry picking is absurd to me. I don't know if I believe in a God for sure of not, as do most critical thinkers, but one thing's for sure; the world would be a less violent place without hundreds of years of religious wars in the name of one god or another. I could never dispute the existence of any god without proof. I choose to follow my heart while not shoving my dogma down anyone's throat just to prove a point. Get off it! If there is a God, then Science only attempts to learn his processes, whether it's by design or whatever, and if not, then Science is here to help us understand the world around us. Maybe it's God's world and maybe it's not. But it's not worth all this petty discontent between either side. Extremists from both sides exploit Science in most disingenuous ways and honestly, I'm getting quite sick of it.

ha pakal
- 02/24/2011 at 17:16

a few points on the first 10 minutes. Evolution is not Darwin's theory or idea. The idea is ancient and Darwin's grandfather had written extensively on the subject. What Darwin did is postulate natural selection and descent with modification as the driving mechanisms of evolution. (Making everyone else go, 'Of course' its common sense).
There is NO controversy about the existence of these things. We know evolution, natural selection, and descent with modification, all occur continuously.

People are capable of beveling anything. Many believe, as this man does. The issue of god does not center around beyond the complete lack of need for one. And if there is a god, it only begs the question, "where did god come from then?"
so, it answers nothing. teaches to accept biblical teahings as g od's word (when clearly they are men's words in 'holy' books.

Look up where the word 'holy' comes from sometime. It is ALL very primitive and it is past time we move beyond it. Religion is a form of tribalism. It is not that god may not exist. It may. But we sure as heck aren;t going to find it in ANY man made religion. Our brains are a subsequent part of this process. How can it hope to grasp the whole of something so much larger than itself? it cannot. Explore yourself. Do not interfere in the display of consciousnesses. This, is spirituality

The bible does not mention any age of the earth. People who add up the generations since Adam, are simply clueless and deluding themselves. It does say the world is flat. it is okay to kill, conquer, rape, torture, enslave. What a loving god! (how can people believe this stuff?? They pick and choose.

If there is a god find it in the love in your heart and in your compassion for all fellow sentient beings. NOT, in bibles and korans -which are so full of contradictions and outdated morality that anyone could justify just about any act using one of those books. (And they do).

The 'we are god' idea is called pantheism. (read Spinoza) We are not god because god would be the generating principle and processes. but we, if god exists are all equally part. A speck of dust is no less part of creation than any other part. In fact, our forms are all identical. (conglomerations of particles into matter) it is really only as to function that we vary a bit.

This is one of my favourite docs on the subject,and I recommend it to all Angry Athiests and Wacky Creationists.(and Tyler,thats NOT a Cadillac,you goofball.It's a 1958 Chevrolet Corvette in cherry condition)

joe,Keep your shirt on,man.nobody is insulting you or attacking your empirical ivory tower, so chill. angry statements like that typify the ridiculous animosity and woefully OBTUSE hostility on both sides of what has become a slugfest of intolerance and ego.That's not very evolved behaviour,now,IS IT? and incidentally,WE ARE GOD.So act like it

"Did Darwin kill god?" - is a blatantly disingenuous preloaded statement. Please don't offend your viewers' intelligence by suggesting we be naive enough to fall for a line like this. Obviously he doesn't mean it in the literal sense but in reality, there is no 'god' for Darwin to 'kill' in the first place so please don't imply there is without first providing an accurate identification and empirical evidence of its existence. If there is a 'god', prove it. Anyone in disagreement, kindly explain in detail what 'god' is, without resorting to childish rhetoric like "He is the creator of everything" or "He is just too great to be described in worldly terms" or "He is soo wonderful" or that ubiquitous christian cr@p "You can't prove that 'god' doesn't exist." Either explain in rational terms that we can all understand or STFU!

"God" is an idea created by the brain. It's been proven that by stimulating a certain part of the brain, a person will feel the great presence of something. "God" is simply a word that we have in our vocabulary to describe this feeling. But by "killing" the word, you can "kill" the idea.

Avaline Smith
- 05/05/2012 at 10:07

Well, I don't know if I can explain anything in terms that you might understand. You seem to have issues with that. the title was obviously not literal. Cleary it was intended to give viewers an accurate idea of what the documentary entailed with a poetic spin.

I think that most people had the very accurate understanding that this would be a program that would discuss the effects of the theory of evolution on theistic belief.

What the heck did you think it would be about? Darwin building a giant space laser and shooting a giant man in the clouds?

Joe
- 12/16/2010 at 04:26

The narrator is articulate, but his case is only an elaborate capitulation on behalf of christianity in a transparent attempt to gain a foothold of legitimacy. As usual - no supporting evidence for his god - only mataphor, tradition and speculation - no surprises. Saying "god is the creator" does not even begin to explain what 'god' is.
.
Good try Connor Cunningham. Better luck next time.

The purpose of this documentary is not to provide supporting evidence for his God. he simply wanted to set the many people straight on the fact that there is philosophically no contradiction between darwinism and some form of christian beilef.. so you have basically just tryed to flex your intellectual ego a little bit by writting a pointless comment on this link.
Joe get a life.

Bad_conduct
- 12/06/2010 at 01:11

If you can't take the Bible literally, than you can pretty much just make up whatever you want.

What's the point of having a Bible if you have to re-write everything before you read it? I think it's just time we put the bible in the "fiction" category. Like any good scientific text book, it ran its course and has been proven incorrect.

A major criticism of Darwinism is that it does not explain what conditions would be required for it to be falsified. This suggests it is not actually a scientific theory at all (at least as 'science' is defined by Popper). Darwinism presents itself as 'science' but it is probably best understood as a 'myth' and thus of the same intellectual status as religious myths.

The ding-dong arguments between the bigots of science and religion (given plenty of airtime in this documentary) demonstrate that they are two sides of the same loathesome coin. Dawkins and the other Ultra Darwinists belong in a Creationist museum - maybe in a tar-pit alongside the other animatronics.

The situation in biology is shameful - what other major scientific discipline has made no discernable theoretical progress since the mid-C19th? The sooner the dead hand of Darwinism is removed the better for biology.

you obviously have 0 clue about evolution. You should have researched evolution before making such a false accusation. If this Christian in the film cannot disprove it and actually has to change the way people read genesis to create a lasting merit for the bible than in effect evolution proves that there is no god because as much as science disproves god, man makes up excuses for how it can fit in with the bible and it wont last much longer science will close the gap.

James
- 10/08/2010 at 13:56

This was probably the best balanced Christian look at evolution I've seen. I was only really thrown off by his reaction to "ultra-Darwinism". His rejection of the concept of memes, because they suggest that the very ideas of memes and Darwinism are themselves just memes, seems close-minded. It is in this corner I believe science and religion confront each other. His predisposition to belief causes him to reject a theory that suggests truth may be unattainable or relative. I think it's fairly obvious that all social ideas are learned behaviors, including religion and science. Both are still present today because the minds utilizing them found them useful and passed them on.

I firmly believe in god ..but find the entire concept of religion and any book which puts men's words into it (bible, etc) complete rubbish ..i dislike the fact the if i believe in god that makes me religious. Religion has hijacked God.

But its not "nonsense" to them. And it's cruel to mock ignorance isnt it?

Wtf
- 08/27/2010 at 03:26

Ok please, Let me say something. In the book of Genesis it states that God created all life on Earth in 6 days. HOW THE F@#$ CAN YOU INTEROPERATE THAT INTO 4.3 billion years? Can someone please tell me the metamorphic-al, and philosophical interpretation one could get..

It makes absolutely no sense, why would an all knowing god, (keep in mind the Bible wasn't written by him...) Put such ludicrous into a book describing Genesis.

I'm 15, and I see it as complete and utter bull s#$%. A man living in a whale for three days, a virgin birth, WTF? Have you all gone mad? How does this have any further meaning.. What book in this world is written to have further meaning than its text? NONE.

Not taking the Bible literally, is the same as not reading it at all, man you Christians are running out of ideas to back up your bull s@#$ facts.

He's not making any point, he's just saying that even though people know how the world was created, there still are some lunatics who believe there is God.
I don't understand what's the point of this documentary.

Heads done in! The deeper you get into it and the more complicated, the reasoning, the answers throw up are more of a PARADOX, then you find yourself going back to "square One"......."Did Darwin Kill God"? We are stuck with the ruler for now.

did Darwin killed God? as if. God is not a man-made idea that you can kill with an argument or theory or science. God is. Whether or not you believe in God has absolutely no effect on the fact that God was, is and is to come.

The accuracy of laser based surveying equipment is astonishing. We currently laser level our fields to improve irrigation. We can easly keep a grade to around a cm per acre. We can do better but the curvature of the earth starts to impact the results and the software on the surveying equipment is old and doesn't account for curvature(so im told).

What really dices my cilantro is you can buy GPS based auto guidance equipment that drive them selves and will automatically make any type of slope you want... or do your harvest while you take a siesta.

Yet another example of a question that is easy to ask and really difficult to answer. I really like the way that your answer hints at there being an important need to make clear basic definitions like 'use a predefined “sea level”' or 'average distance between the highest high tide and lowest low tide for the next 365 days.' in order to make progress in answering tough questions. This is always the case from my point of view. and as usual you are as sharp as a razor and twice as dangerous. Thanks.

@Epicurean_Logic - "Then you just need to decide what is the difference between the beach and the ocean.’ question, seems to hint at the answer being a variable length."

The answer is only a variable length if "difference between the beach and the ocean" is a variable length.

Say for example, the "beach" is the average distance between the highest high tide and lowest low tide for the next 365 days. Another possibility would be to use a predefined "sea level" and all you would need to do is measure where the land was higher and that would make up the beach. If done right this "in theory" would give you an accuracy to the wavelength of the laser. Since the wave length could also be very small even if you assumed 100% error the difference between the actual beach and the 100% error mark would not be much different.

Although cost preventive I see no reason why modern science could not make an accurate measurement of something like an entire beach.

@Epicurean_Logic - "how much detail do we have to look at to find the exact answer?"

I think a Planck length is the smallest unit of measurement... but im sure you can find something much larger like the average outer measurement of natural molecules on a beach. Since we have a lower limit we would not need to represent the length of the beach in some kind of self-similarity equation.

Then you just need to decide what is the difference between the beach and the ocean.

Im willing to bet that with a bit of time you can punch the numbers into excel and have it spit out the possible ranges of answers. The low number would be if the beach was a perfect line(1 to 1). The high number being the length times some sort of Koch snowflake equation. The snowflake would only need to drop down to the size of your average molecule.

In the end you would have the largest length the beach could ever possible be. A large number for sure but nothing your cell phone couldn't spit out in a second or 2.

Fractal! The way we try to make sense of it all is the ruler and we get a measurement we can see but fractal comes into mind if I'm really truthful bout it all. I think we will all have to use the ruler for now. Yours truely bonkers

Creationism is not the only way to understand Genesis chapter 1. There are other accepted approaches to this passage. Religious ideas, loved or hated, should be afforded the opportunity for updated understandings.

Try reviewing:

"The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate" by John H. Walton

Book Description - provided by Amazon
"John Walton offers a compelling and persuasive interpretation of Genesis, one that challenges those who take it as an account of material origins. His excellent book is must-reading for all who are interested in the origins debate.

In this astute mix of cultural critique and biblical studies, John H. Walton presents and defends twenty propositions supporting a literary and theological understanding of Genesis 1 within the context of the ancient Near Eastern world and unpacks its implications for our modern scientific understanding of origins.

Ideal for students, professors, pastors and lay readers with an interest in the intelligent design controversy and creation-evolution debates, Walton's thoughtful analysis unpacks seldom appreciated aspects of the biblical text and sets Bible-believing scientists free to investigate the question of origins. "
---------------

I think the work is refreshing, especially for me, because I am compelled to think differently than say an atheist. However, I love science and am more inclined to follow the Theories of Evolution than any other Theory. I like to listen to ideas, critically think about them, and then make me judgement; which is probably wrong. :)

I will keep searching and reading, but clearly we need to give room for ideas to evolve.

For a scientific theory to be anything more than a theory, there must be absolutely no exceptions under any circumstance... ever. The only way that the hypotheses within a theory can make the leap from being theoretical to immutable would be to test it through an infinite number of iterations at every point within the entire universe, with the same algorithm applying each and every time without any variation whatsoever.
True science does not even pretend to know anything whatsoever about what lies outside the observable universe, so true science does not pretend to answer the question of the existence of God. He/She/It is far beyond its reach.
With all of that said, those who take the view that the Bible is the literal truth are, to put it bluntly, ravening nutters. The Bible does not support their arguments. Rather, it fatally undermines them. As Part 1 of this documentary points out, the Bible says that man was first created on the 6th day... and was first created on the 3rd day. If the Biblical account is the literal truth, then the 3rd day and the 6th day must have been the same day... but which one? So-called Christian Fundamentalists have never successfully explained this dichotomy, and not using their God-given logic goes against St Paul's admolition to "examine all things", thereby breaking their own tenet that the Bible is the sole source of all things pertaining to knowledge and morals.
Frankly, I revile both extremes, as both claim to have knowledge that is impossible to attain.

Don't we allow scientific speculations room to evolve into Theories/"Facts"? As speculations continue to gather more supporting research, new ideas emerge or are strengthened, new discoveries are made and old ideas become a footnote. The world used to be flat, and the sun revolved around the Earh, right? :)

In the case of the religious; couldn't they make claims/truths about life due to their understandings of their Scriptures, much like we could think of a scientific proposition?

As observers, we have recognized that the process by which we come to understand something needs to be reviewed. I beieve this is called Hermeneutics.

As far as I know, people mostly if not always approach things with preunderstandings or bias'. In the case of understanding a specific text or religious scripture we need to take THESE into account along with a persons philosophy of language, was translation required, etc... Scientists share incomplete views along the way of discovery and then make corrections. Can't religious scholars along the way make corrections to their understandings of the Scriptures? If a religous person comes to a new possible way to see a text which then allows them to fully work with science, then why not leave that option open for futher discovery?

If I sound aggressive, its more my passion coming out, I mean no offense. I do want to learn, so I do question the onesided ability of science to evolve its ideas but religous ones cant.

I'm just saying, we make personal changes to our belief systems as each of us learn more about the world around us, why can't this freedom exist in other areas/sciences of life?

The real emotion to this arguement always seems to come back to those who hate the effects of a God, such as being asked to lead a "good" life, causing wars, control, murder etc... and those who don't account for the fact that the science used to interpret the Scriptures they hold in their hands, needs room to have been an incorrect/incomplete process.

As observers we need to account for the God concept just as much as an atheistic view. We need to be critical of ideas, but let's help each other grow. Move the negative emotional response to something that helps people learn.

Man has learned only a small fraction of God's workings. And yet he had the courage to question his creator. Worse-say He does not exist. But God do exist. He created us thru evolution. I find no conflict between evolution and God. Because I wasn't indoctrinated in either Ultra-Darwinism and creationism.

The problem is not Science nor Religion. Science was never intended to be blasphemous. And Religion was never intended to be destructive and unreasonable. The problem is man, his lack of imagination and his delusions. And I have to say, Religion is not manmade. It means being at one with God. Now, how can that phenomena be manmade?!

CONCLUSION: Man shouldn't interpret the Bible literally. Search for the true religion, because there is one! And admit to yourselves that the only reason you don't wanna believe in God is because you don't like the idea that you need a Savior. And that you wanna live a carefree life where there is no sin, you can go about your daily pathetic American lives, enjoy all the drugs and pornography without thinking about hell.

@Andries, it depends on which religion you are speaking of. religions claim to have a truth from a divine source, and certain parts of those religions specifically explain their belief in the creation of life. MOST of these stories are fundamentally opposed to evolution.

it would be like a religion that states if you drop a ball it will go up somehow coexisting with gravity.

Who ever they are, they invent religeon for the questions they cant answer or don't understand. It's a case of interpritation and imagination. I try to keep an open mind about the Bible, as I find some of it is relevent to human nature today. I think it is healthy to question some of the scriptures. Blind religeon is a band thing but saying that it is all bull ****, is just as bad. Let's face it, we will never know all the answers. What would it be like if we did? Dawin, just observed. It's us that asks the question: "Did Darwin Kill God".

Oh dear what are they trying to say now -that even tho the biblical tales that have now been proven to be utter trash has now properties of truth..that now everything in it is not all literal and you have to play some sort of guessing game on its content as so it matches up with scientific rational reasoning..like the bull**** scriptures are like a metaphor for absolute truth...oh please this video should be flagged...religion will always get in the way of truth and knowledge

I think it is fair to push each other, provoke even, so that we all can move to a better understanding of the life we are experiencing. But I think this would be best done in a collaborative fashion, in a manner allowing each other to grow. This site is actually a great tool, but can't we move beyond the harsh tactics some use?

I understand that those who don't believe in a God can't stand the dogma of those who do. Much like those who do believe in a God can't stand the dogma of those who say there is no God. But there are reasonable people in both camps, who recognize their limitations of knowledge, improperly held beliefs and possible misinterpretations of the facts. No one individual knows everything.

Fortunately each of us has unique interests, strengths and experiences. Let's learn from each other and appreciate the different views people bring to the table. Let's move beyond the debates of God's existence because of some new science. Scientific method will likely never have any say on whether God exists or not. Why? Because a "God concept" can easily set on top of all the natural processes we see around us; much like a two layer cake. Science can test everything in the natural layer, but the other layer remains untestable, at least with current methods. There is no reason to try and kill God. It's clear that the majority of the world believes in a deity or deities. Let's not be blind to this fact and misinterpret its implications. We don't know what it means exactly, so let’s not exclude this in ignorance.

Likewise, Christians need to understand that there are many educated people who accept more likely interpretations of Genesis chapter 1, such as the one provided in this documentary and have no issues running freely with science.

So because we all could be wrong somewhere in our "belief" system, we need to have some humility and some openness.

Christians, who are concerned that God will disappear from their life, because they listen to the logic of science, might just find that God becomes more obvious to them. Doesn't God encourage you to Ask, Seek and Knock.

Keep an open mind people, there are lots of studies that show we walk around missing reality due to some preconceptions or beliefs. We don't know what we don't know, but what we think we may know, possibly keeps us from seeing what is really there.

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? - Friedrich Nietzche

I liked how he let many different scientists of either the atheist or Christian persuasion share their views without lambasting them with too many questions. This documentary definitely needed to be made; many people have perverted Darwin AND religion (as well as nature and basically everything on earth). I fall into this category and it still shocks me when people feel as though they have the right to force me to choose between my love of God and my love of science when there is an elegant relationship between both.

It's about time someone stood up and said you can believe in God and evolution; there is no conflict between the two except those caused by fundamentalists of either atheist or theist persuasion. In my humble opinion, fundamentalism of ANY kind anywhere is a hindrance to spiritual, mental and scientific progress.

Religion is a man-made thing. I think the Bible is relevent testament to human nature, as to the past as well as the future. Darwin witnessed the workings of a sentient creation. With some of us, who are a part of creation, have become self aware that we are part of this universe that has become self aware.

The only reason for a 'god' is to make us humans more than we are: unimportant little occurrences in a huge universe. Just because we feel the need to be important, just because we WANT to have a concrete plan in life doesn't mean that something created us (especially not allah, god or jahwe). It's all the desperate grasp to a little straw in the face of utter pointlessness.

Sad that many people only see a reason to their existence if they are something specially created.

"God never said the Bible was 100% accurate – it was only humans who have said that." - Har har. It seems that the religious people are always those that read the 'holy' books the least.

I really like this discussion, however I believe it is a bit antiquated and trying to settle an argument between extreme points of view - which does not involve beliefs of the majority - those in the middle majority.
Evolution IS Creation. Any science is merely humans' attempt to understand what God created. And if there is no God, science and morality does not change. However, I do believe in God, and I see no conflict between science and religion. There is only conflict between science and the Bible verbatim, and the words that humans put into God's mouth. God never said the Bible was 100% accurate - it was only humans who have said that. We humans are but specks of sand, and our intelligence and imagination are gifts of God - through Evolution.

Mmmmmh very interesting,my personnal opinion is that religion should confine itself to moral issue's alone.The religion should also come out off literallyness-if there's such a word.The moral issues should not be " we are compelled to think on one line" that looking all the situations in one way.Back to the documentary,Darwin did not kill God beause He could not kill what does not exist,i can say he killed the mentality of taking the bible literally.

I'll have to agree with some of the comments about the narrator; he likes to bend the theories he hears in order to fit his pre-existing worldview. I found many of his explanations lacking in any real universality, because he's so constrained by Christianity. For example, he rejects the idea of 'memes' based on a logical loophole, even though anyone who is familiar with internet culture will tell you that memes are very much a real phenomenon.

However, to be fair I think it must be said that EVERYONE engages in this kind of rationalization. People like to keep only the information that supports their viewpoints and throw out anything that contradicts them. It's a natural conscious filtering process--that is, we can only consciously refine a certain amount of information. Everything else slips through the cracks and winds up in the subconscious.

BBC Documentaries always keep my attention.. I liked it :). I think alot about both sides as well because they are both so controversial side by side. He didn't have to keep saying "I don't see how it can be true....." kinda grined my gears.

Putting it simply...
Belief, "not resting on logical proof of material evidence".
Creationism - Darwinism.
Intelligent Design. In the Universe and living things (which are part of the Universe)are driven by intelligent course.

Beliefs. Change unless you still believe that there is still a flat Earth

Darwinism. Observation and theory, leads to conclusion, but only to a certain degree. (Interesting discussion)!

Intelligent Design. Cause and construction. Explores in more depth. We never disigned ourslves but we are one of the most complicated creatures on Earth. Could we make a Human Being? No Jokes a bout frankenstein please.

He makes some intelligent statements and yet is lost in the idea of being a christian. Being christian makes a specific statement about life which is just as arrogant as being ultra-darwinistic - having life figured out.

Sometimes he seems to be using the word "christian" as a synonym for "believer", which he wouldn't do if he were truly smart.

Helen, why should this program be flagged as Christian propaganda? Why shouldn't the Dawkins/Dennett/Hitchens/Harris documentary, which comes first in this website's religion listings, be flagged as atheist propaganda? Beneath your assertion is a not-so-thinly-vieled bias against Christianity, but is this bias justified? This is an entirely different question. Every single worldview is built upon underlying assumptions, and only through careful investigation can one answer questions about which assumptions are better than others. Trying to poo poo the debate, or squash it before it happens by labeling certain views as suspect, is perhaps the least scientific things that one who is interested in determining the truth could ever do.

So what is the point of this whole video? He hasn't 'proven' anything. He speaks to Francis Collins, a Christian, who says, "Science is limited to making statements about nature ... science is commiting a catagory error to claim dominion over the question of God." I'd have to agree at this point in time. Cunningham himself says, "Christians believe that God 'is' existence." We already have a word called 'nature' that does just as nicely as 'God', so why the need for two words that mean the same thing? Why is Cunningham so upset about this subject in the first place? It's not something I'd lose any sleep over. I'd have to agree though, that is a nice car he's driving.

Darwin never killed God. It says that,"God created the heavens and the earth". If so, it seems to me that as the creator, God is like an artist that is always trying to improve on it's work and evolution is the means to this. God has letting us in on a few secrets on the technique of improvement and that will happen intil the end of our Earth and us.

Well a very apologetic approach from a christian philosophical point of view concentrating on darwins theory. If you can´t beat them, join them. Exactly the tactics of Christian religion through the ages. First try to refute new findings through authoritative dogma. If not successful try desperatly to somehow work it in the belief system. However, he does make a good point, that some religious authorities were much more reasonable in the past. By this I mean that they recognized, that Bible should not be taken literally. Armed with this notion, he bends his religion, so he can retain his belief in a creator. He also fails to recognize that Darwins theory is but a drop in an ocean that eats away the churches power. As we get better, substantiated explanations of our environment and a deeper understanding of inner workings of the universe it becomes apparent that bible is a document of its era and not the answer to everything. His God is the god of gaps. He does drive a sweet blue convertible though. Have to love the aerostream design from the 50ies... and I think we can all agree that Kyle Minogue is hot.

This is a fascinating doc that follows a Christian's exploration of Darwin and his effects on Christianity and how it affects his personal beliefs. It speaks of moderate Christianity and its embarrassment regarding creationists and ID. The history of Saint Augustine is particularly interesting.

It ends with the premise that It is Ultra Darwinism and ID / creationism are the only ones at war; for the rest of us it's all a storm in a teacup.

This is one of the most rational and balanced discussions of evolution I've ever seen. The narrator questions people on both sides of the debate and tries to find a reasonable relationship between religion and science. He also shows that the real divide between the two is, if anything, a gross misconception. "Evolution is the answer to how, God is the answer to why." This documentary goes beyond the explanation of Darwin's theory that we've all heard before. Very good watch.

My Name is Morrison . I call myself a Theoretical Covenant Physicist, TCP . I believe that God Created our Universe and when he did so He Created Man for a special purpose above all other beings . He did not just allow man to evolve from other life forms . An interesting point that has some bearing on this video is the following . In the older comments on Creation there are two words describing and categorizing the Creation of life . One which describes the Creation of Man and another which describes the Creation of all other forms of life with the two being separate and apart one from the other. That is , Man did not evolve from a monkey , but was Created separately By God for a purpose that wasn't to be held by a lower form of Life. I don't have documentation regarding this but was informed of it by a Jewish Scholar and I take him at His Word.

Epicurus
- 11/03/2011 at 19:12

so you have no evidence or logic for what you believe? you just choose to believe it because a jewish scholar told you to?

dont you think it is silly to hold something to be true that has no evidence and while doing so dismiss that which has tons of evidence?

CCMORRISON
- 11/03/2011 at 19:27

A great many written records have been unintentionaly or purposefully misplaced . Book burning etcetera has occurred for a long time . Are we to completely dismiss any notion of accepting a statement because we have no immediately accessible and verifiable form of written documentation on the subject being discussed ? If for instance all written examples of the MAGNA CARTA were destroyed but someone in the distant further brings up the fact that it once existed ; should their report be ignored ? If written documentation regarding the existence of the Magna Carta is destroyed as someone , somewhere undoubtedly wants ; I hope that people will listen to an undocumented report that it once existed . Yours Respectfully : Morrison , Theoretical Covenant Physicist, TCP

Epicurus
- 11/04/2011 at 01:37

if someone were to come forth in the future and say that michael jackson walked on water and was the son of god i would hope people demanded more evidence than some writings.

the magna carta is not making supernatural claims it can hardly be held as an analogy.

there is evidence for evolution to the point where we know it happens. what is the evidence that supports your case?

William Harold Shadley
- 04/28/2012 at 01:07

We constantly tell you, but you dismiss haughtily and arbitrarily that which you are incapable of reproducing, lacking the resources.

Epicurus
- 04/28/2012 at 03:49

how do you know it is true or real if you are not able to reproduce it or show it to be true?